Related

8 Responses to “How effective would X gun law be at stopping a mass shooting?”

One of the MSM buffoons (they all start to meld into the same person after a while, can’t remember which one is which) recently said he perfectly understood that it would do no good but that it was imperative they passed it, even if they didn’t enforce it. He was saying that the reason is that we need to start culturally changing America and that laws like this will make people like guns less and less, and that eventually we can be civilized like Europe.

I think the word he meant was “domesticated”, not “civilized”.

I don’t get these fucksticks. They LOVE everything European, want the US to become just like there, but won’t move there.

There’s only one gun law that is effective at stopping mass murder and it’s called the Second Amendment. Dr. John Lott found that CCW was the only thing that is effective. It deters attacks from occurring, and if they do occur anyway, it can stop them.
Mass murderers are failures who are only deterred by one thing: the prospect of failure. They’re not afraid to kill, and they’re not afraid to die, but the prospect of failing in the attempt by getting shot by a CCW holder makes them cringe and look for an easier target, or just give up on murder and kill themselves alone.
I suppose that it’s really as simple as the idea that armed strength succeeds while gunless weakness fails. We need more armed strength, and that means no more “gun free school zones” where mass murderers are provided with defenseless victims, so that the Democratic Party can get the body counts it needs to drive its gun ban agenda.
The Democratic Party needs to stop killing our kids to advance its political agenda.

The President says that armed security for OUR KIDS isn’t a good thing to do so “gun free school zones” should be kept, but ELEVEN armed security at the school for his kids and David Gregory’s kids is a good thing. Of course, he didn’t have to worry about Gregory quizzing him about that on “Meet the Press”.